Case Number: BC707275 Hearing Date: February 05, 2019 Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Kathleen Austin

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant General Motors LLC

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Correct Address: Yes.
16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): OK. Served by mail on December 7, 2018

GRANT motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1.
GRANT request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,960.

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

u Form Interrogatory No. 1.1: GRANT.

The response does not address the information requested. “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” CCP § 2030.220(a).

u Form Interrogatory No. 12.1: GRANT.

The response does not address the information requested as to the employees of the dealership.

Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED. In particular, the request does not call for information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

“Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. . . .” CCP § 2017.010.

“[A] percipient witness’s willingness to participate in civil discovery has never [*1252] been considered relevant—witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify whether they want to or not.” Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1251-52.

u Form Interrogatory No. 15.1: GRANT.

There must be some factual basis for Defendant’s denials and affirmative defenses. Defendant must answer in accordance with its obligations under CCP § 2030.220:

Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.

CCP § 2030.220.

u Form Interrogatory No. 17.1: GRANT.

Defendant must answer in accordance with its obligations under CCP § 2030.220. Also, referring to other discovery responses is improper.

As stated in Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-84:

Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, “See my deposition,” “See my pleading,” or “See the financial statement.” Indeed, if a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.

(Emphasis added.)

Further, cumulative discovery is permissible:

A party is permitted to use multiple methods of obtaining discovery and the fact that information was disclosed under one method is not, standing alone, a proper basis for refusing to provide discovery under another method. ( Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 218-219 [23 Cal.Rptr. 393, 373 P.2d 457].)

Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 739.

Further responses are due without objection within 10 days.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,960. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.